Strategic Bias in Team Members’ Communication about Relative Contributions: The Effects of Voluntary Communication and Explanation

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Leslie Berger, Lan Guo, Kelsey Matthews, Christopher Wong
{"title":"Strategic Bias in Team Members’ Communication about Relative Contributions: The Effects of Voluntary Communication and Explanation","authors":"Leslie Berger, Lan Guo, Kelsey Matthews, Christopher Wong","doi":"10.2308/bria-2022-056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n One significant challenge of motivating team performance is that the contribution of individual team members is difficult to observe. In this setting, managers often seek private information about team members’ relative contributions to help allocate team bonuses. However, the presence of self-interested biases in such communication, especially strategic bias, could reduce its informational value. We study the effects of two features of team members’ communication about their relative contributions—whether it is mandatory or voluntary and whether an explanation is required—on the severity of employees’ self-interested biases in their communication. As predicted, experimental results show that when explanations are not required, low-ability team members incorporate more strategic bias into their relative contribution communication when it is voluntary, compared to mandatory. We also observe that among low-ability team members, the greater strategic bias observed when the relative contribution communication is voluntary, compared to mandatory, diminishes when an explanation is required.\n Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-2022-056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One significant challenge of motivating team performance is that the contribution of individual team members is difficult to observe. In this setting, managers often seek private information about team members’ relative contributions to help allocate team bonuses. However, the presence of self-interested biases in such communication, especially strategic bias, could reduce its informational value. We study the effects of two features of team members’ communication about their relative contributions—whether it is mandatory or voluntary and whether an explanation is required—on the severity of employees’ self-interested biases in their communication. As predicted, experimental results show that when explanations are not required, low-ability team members incorporate more strategic bias into their relative contribution communication when it is voluntary, compared to mandatory. We also observe that among low-ability team members, the greater strategic bias observed when the relative contribution communication is voluntary, compared to mandatory, diminishes when an explanation is required. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.
团队成员交流相对贡献时的战略偏差:自愿交流和解释的影响
激励团队绩效的一个重大挑战是,很难观察到团队成员个人的贡献。在这种情况下,管理者通常会寻求有关团队成员相对贡献的私人信息,以帮助分配团队奖金。然而,这种沟通中存在的自利偏差,尤其是战略偏差,可能会降低其信息价值。我们研究了团队成员关于其相对贡献的沟通的两个特征--是强制性还是自愿性以及是否需要解释--对员工沟通中自利偏差严重程度的影响。正如预测的那样,实验结果表明,在不要求解释的情况下,与强制沟通相比,低能力团队成员在自愿沟通的情况下,会在相对贡献沟通中加入更多的策略偏差。我们还观察到,在低能力团队成员中,当相对贡献沟通是自愿的而不是强制的时,观察到的更多战略偏差会在需要解释时减少。数据提供:数据可向作者索取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信